An open community 
of Macintosh users,
for Macintosh users.

FineTunedMac Dashboard widget now available! Download Here

Page 13 of 14 < 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 >
Topic Options
#5095 - 10/17/09 06:09 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: tacit]
JM Hanes Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
tacit:

Here's one of my favorite bits of Feynman on the Inconceivable nature of nature which I think you might enjoy, if you haven't already heard it. It sounds like you're sort of on the same wave length, so to speak.

Top
#5096 - 10/17/09 06:14 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: crarko]
JM Hanes Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
According to the History Channel (just call me your TV Guide), Team Nostradamus is currently duking it out with the Maya Doomsayers.

Top
#5098 - 10/17/09 11:14 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: JM Hanes]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Quote:
Food grown with organic fertilizer is better for you than food grow without
This is Feynman's example of a Social Science? The guy needs his head examined by a physiologist. He is talking about biology.

Social Science may not use the same tools as you would find in Feynman's discipline, but it is structured and it does follow the same principles that are required for a scientific study.

Feynman claims that there are no laws as a result of social science and I would argue that there are many among the many sub-disciplines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences

Feynman is a physicist whose cognitive focus is measuring matter and motion, with mathematics and modeling. It is understandable to a social anthropologist that a man in his field of study would determine that which cannot be measured with his tools would not be measurable by his standards. A linguist could, deconstruct his choice of language and with some measure of accuracy predict what may be said on most subjects, given his success, ego, and lack of tools to do someone else's job on a professional scientific level. Just because he's a recognizable physicist doesn't mean he knows a hill of beans about economics, or cognitive analysis. I would like to see him define and measure fear, for example.





Edited by sandbox (10/18/09 12:27 AM)

Top
#5099 - 10/18/09 12:18 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: crarko]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Originally Posted By: crarko

For myself, I don't really give a rat's p'tootie if Sociology is considered a science or not.
.
.
.

The sociological question that I would like to pose is: how do you go about disseminating science and creating interest for it within a culture where the universe of discourse seems to be pre-occupied with pirates and vampires? smile


Would a rat's p'tootie be a black hole for a veterinarian?

With supernatural power vampires drink blood, quite similar to the Catholic traditions of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. Through the supernatural power of the church and its priests, Christ body parts are passed out to those who profess to their faith. With the same influence the church satisfies its hunger for power and wealth from the recipients. 10% of your net income may not seem like a blood sucking in exchange for the power that you get from eating and drinking the body parts of Christ, but who can say? Near 25% of the population of the world belongs to that tradition. The Vampire is yet another Christian fixation about death.

Pirates are wet thieves but grounded in history and take what they want with total disregard for laws or compassion for their victims. Quite similar to Wall Street, Insurance Companies, the tax collectors and anyone else that have a license to steal.

From an industry point of view both characters are fictitious, and they won't be getting any slack from the ACLU for a racist cast of actors.


Edited by sandbox (10/18/09 12:24 AM)

Top
#5100 - 10/18/09 05:47 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: sandbox]
...JER Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Originally Posted By: sandbox
Would a rat's p'tootie be a black hole for a veterinarian?
Not if it was a WHITE rat! laugh

_________________________
...JER (-: >

Top
#5101 - 10/18/09 06:13 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: crarko]
jchuzi Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: New York State
Let's look at the other side of the Nobel Prize coin. Witness the Ig Nobel Prizes and past and present Ig Nobel Laureates.


Edited by jchuzi (10/18/09 06:40 AM)
_________________________
Jon

OS 10.14.2, iMac Retina 5K 27-inch, late 2014, 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5, 1 TB fusion drive, 16 GB RAM, Epson SureColor P600, Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, MS Office 365

Top
#5104 - 10/18/09 11:28 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: sandbox]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: sandbox
Originally Posted By: crarko
The sociological question that I would like to pose is: how do you go about disseminating science and creating interest for it within a culture where the universe of discourse seems to be pre-occupied with pirates and vampires? smile

With supernatural power vampires drink blood, quite similar to the Catholic traditions of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. Through the supernatural power of the church and its priests, Christ body parts are passed out to those who profess to their faith. With the same influence the church satisfies its hunger for power and wealth from the recipients. 10% of your net income may not seem like a blood sucking in exchange for the power that you get from eating and drinking the body parts of Christ, but who can say? Near 25% of the population of the world belongs to that tradition. The Vampire is yet another Christian fixation about death.

Pirates are wet thieves but grounded in history and take what they want with total disregard for laws or compassion for their victims. Quite similar to Wall Street, Insurance Companies, the tax collectors and anyone else that have a license to steal.

From an industry point of view both characters are fictitious, and they won't be getting any slack from the ACLU for a racist cast of actors.

OMG, what an excellent answer to the question crarko asked!!!

Without a doubt, "science" is truly your forte [and sole incentive]. crazy

I do hope we can feed more, from your fountain of knowledge.


Edited by Hal Itosis (10/18/09 12:16 PM)

Top
#5111 - 10/18/09 03:58 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
tacit Offline


Registered: 08/03/09
Loc: Portland, Oregon, USA
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

The closer and closer to lightspeed that baseball approaches, the more and more Newton (and you) get wronger and wronger results. That's one thing Einstein solved, and Newton would never have expected his equations to err (simply due to the object's high velocity).

The missing factor is something like (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 [causing weirdness like mass and time to change.]


Just so. Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong; he proved that Newton's laws were right for the limited subset of conditions Newton was aware of.

By way of an analogy, imagine an underwater civilization of intelligent aliens. They make measurements and observations about the world around them, and Sir Isaac Brightfin codifies those observations into a very simple law that predicts how fast a stone falls.

Sir Brightfin's observations aren't taken on faith; they're matters of empirical fact. People go out and see stones falling and they agree with Sir Brightfin's descriptions.

Then, a little later, Albert Sharptail comes up with a new set of equations. They're more complicated than Sir Isaac Brightfin's equations, because Sir Isaac Brightfin's equations have the viscosity of water built into them. Albert Sharptail's equations, though, let you plug in different kinds of numbers, for different liquids or even for air, and predict how fast a stone will fall in all those environments.

Now, if you plug in water's viscosity to Albert Sharptail's equations, they agree exactly with Sir Isaac Brightfin's equations.

Albert Sharptail's equations have not proven Isaac Brightfin's equations wrong; far from it. They have abstracted Isaac Brightfin's equations, made them more general so that they apply to a larger set of environments. Only an anchovy would think that Albert Sharptail "proved Isaac Brightfin wrong"!

Originally Posted By: "hal itosis"
I seem to recall some example where we start with 2 twins and send one off in a spacecraft traveling at near lightspeed for 20 years. When he returns to Earth his twin there has aged 20 years, but the astronaut twin is much less older... something like that? Of course that's unproven as yet... but (assuming it's possible), Newton would never have expected that.


It's not unproven; in fact, it's been demonstrated very well, for things traveling a lot slower than light. Time dilation is an inconvenient fact of life for the engineers who design the GPS satellites, because time for them passes differently than time on the ground, and if they don't account for that then your GPS system wouldn't work.

That's one of the neat things about science. You don't take anything on faith. You don't believe Newton because he's smart and you venerate him. You believe only those things which Newton said which you can confirm with evidence; you discard things Newton said which don't conform to the evidence.

Originally Posted By: "Hal Itosis"
Newton got a few key things wrong... yet science had faith in his version of the truth.  Accept it.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Newton said many things, none of which were taken on faith, and all of which were only believed insofar as they could be proven by evidence. When environments and situations were found where they did not match the evidence, they were superseded by more general ideas that did match the evidence, and also still matched the evidence in those places where Newton's ideas did. No faith involved.

Faith is belief without evidence. Nobody has faith in science--or, if someone does have faith in science, he's doing it wrong.
_________________________
Photo gallery, all about me, and more: www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Top
#5112 - 10/18/09 04:00 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: JM Hanes]
crarko Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Minnesota USA
I wonder if Nostradamus predicted this...


_________________________
---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr

Top
#5113 - 10/18/09 04:04 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: tacit]
crarko Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Minnesota USA
Quote:
Newton said many things, none of which were taken on faith, and all of which were only believed insofar as they could be proven by evidence. When environments and situations were found where they did not match the evidence, they were superseded by more general ideas that did match the evidence, and also still matched the evidence in those places where Newton's ideas did. No faith involved.


Well, not quite all, I think.
_________________________
---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr

Top
#5114 - 10/18/09 04:49 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: tacit]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: tacit
That's one of the neat things about science. You don't take anything on faith. You don't believe Newton because he's smart and you venerate him. You believe only those things which Newton said which you can confirm with evidence; you discard things Newton said which don't conform to the evidence.

Yes ... you now have that luxury. Had you lived in 1803 (or something), you would not have that luxury. You would only have your false belief that Newton understood what **time** was, and how to calculate the momentum of high speed objects. [i don't know of any place where Newton said: "oh... these formulas get less and less accurate the faster stuff moves."]


Originally Posted By: tacit
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Apparently it has more meanings than you are able (or willing) to comprehend.


Originally Posted By: tacit
Newton said many things, none of which were taken on faith, and all of which were only believed insofar as they could be proven by evidence.

Wow... you know what everyone in the 1800's was thinking!?!?! Amazing.


Originally Posted By: tacit
When environments and situations were found where they did not match the evidence, they were superseded by more general ideas that did match the evidence, and also still matched the evidence in those places where Newton's ideas did. No faith involved.

That's your analysis... and i have mine... and that's what makes the world go 'round.

Newton himself had faith/belief that his notion/understanding of **time** as a component of physics was true/accurate.
Let's see you spin that one professor.

[Of course -- as i said before -- i'm not faulting science where it takes things on faith. Let me know when they build that cockroach out of raw elements (not molecules snipped from organisms) so we can celebrate your faith being fulfilled. wink ]

Top
#5115 - 10/18/09 05:29 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
alternaut Offline

Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
[Of course -- as i said before -- i'm not faulting science where it takes things on faith. Let me know when they build that cockroach out of raw elements (not molecules snipped from organisms) so we can celebrate your faith being fulfilled. wink ]

- Science doesn't (need to) take anything on faith; 'scientists' may. tongue
- Why those critter building restrictions, and how does that cockroach fulfill any faith? cool
_________________________
alternaut moderator

Top
#5117 - 10/18/09 07:44 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: alternaut]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: alternaut
- Science doesn't (need to) take anything on faith; 'scientists' may. tongue

Alright, then please complete the following sentence (using as many words as necessary):
In the 1800s, science __________ Newton's concept of time... based on __________ .




Originally Posted By: alternaut
- Why those critter building restrictions, and how does that cockroach fulfill any faith? cool

Yes... page 2 does seem like an eternity ago.
Again, if the following not an expression of faith... please characterize tacit's statement in your own words:
Originally Posted By: tacit
Not yet, anyway. They can put together individual living cells from scratch, but not a cockroach.

Yet.

"Not yet" meaning what exactly?  Soon?  One day?
Based on what?  Hope?  Desire?  Proof?  What proof?

[anyway... we couldn't even agree on what 'from scratch' meant, even though i spelled it out.]

--

BTW, for all you English majors out there... i give you the first sentence in both Apple's dictionary and the Wikipedia:

Apple: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one's faith in politicians.

Wikipedia: Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.


Edited by Hal Itosis (10/19/09 12:04 PM)

Top
#5118 - 10/18/09 08:50 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: tacit]
JM Hanes Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Quote:
Newton said many things, none of which were taken on faith, and all of which were only believed insofar as they could be proven by evidence. When environments and situations were found where they did not match the evidence, they were superseded by more general ideas that did match the evidence, and also still matched the evidence in those places where Newton's ideas did.


In an ideal world perhaps; historically, the process has not been nearly so tidy. Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions speaks extensively, and elegantly, to this process -- one which is not, in fact, dissimilar from the process of change in many places outside of science. The first section of the Emory outline I linked to earlier, has a (very) bare bones intro which doesn't really do Kuhn justice, but might be useful here:

Quote:
A. A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs (p. 4).

1. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice" (5).

2. The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs exert a "deep hold" on the student's mind.

C. Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" (5)—scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.

D. To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (5).

E. Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education" (5).

F. A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly "subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice" (6). These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions—"the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science" (6).

1. New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community.

2. When a shift takes place, "a scientist's world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory" (7).

Kuhn's basic point is that rather than evolving or moving forward incrementally, science progresses explosively. One only has to look at the global warming brouhaha to see a Kuhnian confluence of science, pseudo-science, believers, apostates, politics, and economics working up to what may, or yet may not, be a paradigm shifting moment. Scientists are not always the bastion of rationality in that mix.

Top
#5119 - 10/18/09 09:07 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: sandbox]
JM Hanes Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Quote:
The guy needs his head examined by a physiologist.

I'm sensing a certain disciplinary confusion here, but since Feynman is dead as a doornail, I don't think anybody will be examining his head any time soon, unless he left his brain to science.

Quote:
A linguist could, deconstruct his choice of language and with some measure of accuracy predict what may be said on most subjects, given his success, ego, and lack of tools to do someone else's job on a professional scientific level.

I recommend Linguistics 101, if that's really the kind of thing you think linguists do.

Top
#5121 - 10/19/09 02:51 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Quote:
OMG, what an excellent answer to the question crarko asked!!!

Without a doubt, "science" is truly your forte [and sole incentive]. crazy

I do hope we can feed more, from your fountain of knowledge.


How does Hal_lelujah go about disseminating science and creating interest for it within a culture where the universe of discourse seems to be pre-occupied with pirates and vampires?

I would say first understand the culture. The culture of vampirism is not universal really; it is based in the eastern side of Europe where Christians were fabricating more myths. What would a story about Vampires serve? It would certainly control a population to not travel at night. It could cover up violent acts done by regular Christians behind masks….and I'm sure there were Vampire hunts and hanging people who were falsely accused of drinking someone else's blood besides their gods.

There's a long tradition of fabricating stories to cover up crimes. Virgin birth was used quite frequently to cover up rape during Roman occupation during the time of Mary's Virgin birth.

How you change the culture of such beliefs is to try to find the origins and demonstrate practical reasoning for the outlandish claims. But I'm sure you have a scientific answer for cracko's question, or maybe your just trying play God's answer to science fiction writers. If you need a Vampire in your life by all means enjoy it with your Eucharist. I just think it's kind of silly myself but I understand your fear.

Top
#5122 - 10/19/09 03:50 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: JM Hanes]
crarko Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Minnesota USA
Kuhn is not quite as influential in the Philosophy of Science as he was expected to be in the 70's and 80's when it seemed 'paradigm this' and 'paradigm that' were the words of the day. I'd say Popper holds greater sway in the actual working scientist's game plan. Also, in his later years, Kuhn changed his mind about some of the points in Structure.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
_________________________
---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr

Top
#5123 - 10/19/09 03:53 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: crarko]
crarko Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Minnesota USA
All the ad-hom's in this thread are pretty tiresome. Do better, or go find somebody's Macintosh to break and get help with.
_________________________
---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr

Top
#5136 - 10/19/09 11:00 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: sandbox]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: sandbox
How does Hal_lelujah go about disseminating science and creating interest for it within a culture where the universe of discourse seems to be pre-occupied with pirates and vampires?

I would say first understand the culture. The culture of vampirism is not universal really; it is based in the eastern side of Europe where Christians were fabricating more myths. What would a story about Vampires serve? It would certainly control a population to not travel at night. It could cover up violent acts done by regular Christians behind masks….and I'm sure there were Vampire hunts and hanging people who were falsely accused of drinking someone else's blood besides their gods.

There's a long tradition of fabricating stories to cover up crimes. Virgin birth was used quite frequently to cover up rape during Roman occupation during the time of Mary's Virgin birth.

How you change the culture of such beliefs is to try to find the origins and demonstrate practical reasoning for the outlandish claims. But I'm sure you have a scientific answer for cracko's question, or maybe your just trying play God's answer to science fiction writers. If you need a Vampire in your life by all means enjoy it with your Eucharist. I just think it's kind of silly myself but I understand your fear.

Once again you post another load of dung that has absolutely nothing to do with science. [you "understand my fear"?... any more jokes?]

I see by your registration date that (somehow) you're part of the "in" crowd around here... but you're coming off like a very disturbed teenager (or 10-year-old even), so i really have to wonder who you are and what your problem is. Quite obviously though, your wounded inner child is not getting its needs met... but i can't help you. [you are so totally confused that you think you represent science and i represent catholicism... how funny is that!!! grin ]



Originally Posted By: sandbox
But I'm sure you have a scientific answer for cracko's question,

Unlike yourself, I wasn't pretending to.

Top
#5138 - 10/19/09 11:40 AM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: tacit]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: tacit
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
I seem to recall some example where we start with 2 twins and send one off in a spacecraft traveling at near lightspeed for 20 years. When he returns to Earth his twin there has aged 20 years, but the astronaut twin is much less older... something like that? Of course that's unproven as yet... but (assuming it's possible), Newton would never have expected that.

It's not unproven; in fact, it's been demonstrated very well, for things traveling a lot slower than light. Time dilation is an inconvenient fact of life for the engineers who design the GPS satellites, because time for them passes differently than time on the ground, and if they don't account for that then your GPS system wouldn't work.

Oh i see. On the one hand you say science never believes things without evidence... but now you seem to believe that the fact that mechanical devices in orbit run at different clock speeds also means that a human's biological system would age less than his twin's (by a factor of years possibly) due to high speed travel.

Is that not a leap of faith?

BTW, you said "traveling a lot slower than light" -- so I must ask this: Is the time dilation affecting those GPS satellites due to their motion (as per Special Relativity), or due to the fact that the gravitational force of the Earth is much weaker up there (as per General Relativity)?

If the latter... do you still maintain that the Twins example has been "demonstrated very well"?

Top
#5139 - 10/19/09 12:25 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: crarko]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: crarko
All the ad-hom's in this thread are pretty tiresome. Do better, or go find somebody's Macintosh to break and get help with.

I agree. The way sandbox used your "vampire" word as a means to launch another anti-Christian attack was pretty pathetic. My main objection is that such diversions based on prejudice only serve to drag the topic away from unexplained scientific principles. Of course, if the FineTunedMac admins are of the same mind, there's not much we can do about it.

Top
#5140 - 10/19/09 12:40 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: JM Hanes]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Originally Posted By: JM Hanes
Quote:
The guy needs his head examined by a physiologist.

I'm sensing a certain disciplinary confusion here, but since Feynman is dead as a doornail, I don't think anybody will be examining his head any time soon, unless he left his brain to science.

Quote:
A linguist could, deconstruct his choice of language and with some measure of accuracy predict what may be said on most subjects, given his success, ego, and lack of tools to do someone else's job on a professional scientific level.

I recommend Linguistics 101, if that's really the kind of thing you think linguists do.


OK, the guy needed to have his head examined....is what I should have written.

Thanks for the link on Linguistics, I was thinking of something else when i wrote that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK48m7uVxz8 it could have been better articulated.


Edited by sandbox (10/19/09 12:41 PM)

Top
#5141 - 10/19/09 12:53 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Apparently your idea of science is something unique to you. There are many disciplines but for some reason your trying to impose your definition on others. Curious?

My posts as they relate to you and Catholicism are based on your annual visits to these establishments. I suspected that by using examples of the tradition that you understood, that you would be able to get over yourself, but I see that I've not been successful.

Top
#5142 - 10/19/09 01:49 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Quote:
I agree. The way sandbox used your "vampire" word as a means to launch another anti-Christian attack was pretty pathetic.


I don't really see it that way; there is no attack on anyone or any religion. The question seemed be how do we move cultures from the myth of Vampires as an example, to scientific exploration. I expressed my view of what seems to be the origins of vampirism in Eastern Europe under the religious direction of the Catholic Church. A church that, has a tradition of symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their god. I know of no other religious tradition or culture that does this, if you do please share it with us so that we can understand that it's not unique to a specific religious culture but, possibly a normal activity practiced by our species.

Is there some scientific way to calculate how much power is derived from symbolically drinking the blood your god? Is there a correlation between the measurement of energy, and the energy one gets when watching a vampire program, or watching evangelicals extracting money on TV?

How does a belief in the power of symbolically eating and drinking the body parts of your god advance the cause of science?

I hope this inquiry is not ad-hoc, I was hoping to understand how faith in the supernatural helped advance our exploration of the universe.

I've always suspected that hocus pocus was just a distraction from true exploration, but since you’re the "scientist" advocating ambiguously that hocus pocus is of use to you, I'll concede to your scientific expertise and try to find a vegetarian tradition that only requires me to symbolically eat the sauce or noodles.

Again, the purpose of the original question was too try to find scientific exercises that would correlate with faith based presumptions.

Top
#5147 - 10/19/09 02:44 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: sandbox]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: sandbox
OK, the guy needed to have his head examined....is what I should have written.

"The guy"  (in case someone didn't know) was one of the greatest physicists of our time.

'Perception is reality' seems to be a theory proven here with every post.

Top
Page 13 of 14 < 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 >

Moderator:  alternaut, cyn